TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Winifred The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

Wyatt There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Evolution-X Oh my goodness, where do I start? I remember hearing about this movie back in 2009 when I saw it on a shelf at Target back then. I remember being curious about it because I kind of enjoyed the first movie but in some ways, I was a little iffy about it. I remember wanting to watch it but I didn't buy it until October of last year but I didn't actually watch it until a few weeks ago, and man, I really wish that I didn't.I am going to say this: I have SOMEWHAT of a thing for unrelated direct-to-video sequels. I know that a lot of them turn out not to be so good. Some are watchable. Some just happen to have the name slapped on it and it's the same thing but it turns out to be really bad. Few are actually good, and this is not one of those movies. It was really bad.Now I am not going to deny that the movie has a lot of eye candy. It had some great visuals of Hawaii, great underwater sequences and of course, great looking women. Laura Vandervoort, Mircea Monroe, Marsha Thomason, Audrina Patridge, even some of the other female characters who we didn't get to know were all smoking hot. However, that's as far as I can go when it comes to the positives. Now on to the negatives.The plot is almost a replica of the first film, yet there were some differences. The other couple in this one were more like a comic relief couple and didn't get them into the trouble that the couple in the first one did. Plus, it felt kind of predictable who the villains were. Right at the beginning, I kind of sensed that the British people were going to be revealed as the villains more than halfway through the movie but I saw it coming from a mile away. Second, what was the point in the little anti-war subtext that came out of left field? I understand that they tried to differ from the first one being the "illegal treasure" that is found at the bottom of the ocean was a nuclear weapon as opposed to drugs, but why bomb Hawaii? Also, another thing that I thought that was badly done was when they killed off Mircea Monroe's character. I get that in a lot of movies, there has to be at least one casualty in the protagonist group, but I really didn't think that her character needed to be iced unless the writers wanted it to resemble the first film. But in the first film, the reason the other girl died was because she got bit by a shark but she was somewhat of an antagonist anyway. This movie, on the other hand, didn't have a reason to kill her off and then later on, have a little funeral for her and then it was like it didn't happen. The actor could have shown that he was more broken up about his girlfriend's death than he actually did.There are some more negative things that I could point out. One, the henchman who can't swim. I kind of chuckled when I saw that part when he was drowning at sea. Also, the mini subplot with Audrina Patridge's character coming up and talking all fast was really pointless and her boyfriend wasn't even a major character in the movie. Also, Laura's character making a fast recovery from hypothermia. Okay, I can let that one slide because it was a plot device and she had to go back to her boyfriend and friends eventually. But wait, this was a major goof if I ever saw one and I am sure I am not the only one who saw this: after she ran into a cop and her boyfriend's rival, they take the guy's boat to go find her boyfriend and friend. But that's not the bad part, the bad part is that we last saw her wearing a hospital gown but when we saw her meet up with her friends, we see her wearing a different shirt and you see the bikini string coming out of the shirt collar. Okay, for one thing, she wouldn't had enough time to go and change her shirt because she had to meet her friends to help them. Even she did have enough time, the best thing she could do is just get a shirt, not a bikini top along with it. I thought that was a major error when I saw it.I could really go on about how bad this movie is. The first movie wasn't special either, but I found it entertaining in some areas. This movie, on the hand, had so many errors and it suffered from bad writing and bad directing. Some of the acting was decent, particularly from the villains, but other than that, it was a bad movie. Don't ever waste your time watching this movie.

Argemaluco In 2005,George W. Bush started with his second period as a President of the United States; North Korea announced its possession of nuclear weapons; Pope John Paul II died after a long illness; and a movie called Into the Blue appeared.The existence of this movie is not as bad as the other things that happened on that year,but the film itself was execrable.Now,in 2009,the United States have another President,there is another Pope,new Korean nuclear weapons...and the film Into the Blue 2: The Reef,which is better than the original one...but that's the same as saying: "getting your fingers cut is better than getting your head cut".This sequel is a really bad film which kept me tremendously bored and uninterested.The cast of Into the Blue 2: The Reef is composed by TV-series actors who completely lack of any credibility and dramatic weight,but who are perfect for showing their bodies.Chris Carmack (The O.C.),David Anders (Heroes and Alias),Laura Vandervoort (Smallville),Marsha Tomason (Lost) and Audrina Patridge (The Hills) bring hollow and boring performances.I liked some previous movies from director Stephen Herek (Critters and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure specially) but on this movie,he cannot generate even the minimum level of tension,emotion or entertainment.The characters from this movie are not only badly performed,but they are also repulsive.Honestly,I wanted all of them to die.The cinematography from this movie is also lame and it seems to have been made by a technical team who makes promotional videos for Hawaiian hotels.Into the Blue 2: The Reef is a horrible movie which is better than the original film,but that's the same as nothing,as I previously said.Avoid this crappy film at all costs.

dbborroughs Brainless film about a good looking but brainless couple who decide to live their dream and take people on diving tours. The pair almost instantly make the wrong choice of customers and get mixed up with some people seeking to recover the items that we see falling to the ocean floor during the opening credits sequence. Great looking direct to video movie could have been so much better if it wasn't so interested in primarily looking good. Performances are serviceable and the plot is actually not bad, or would have been had the director and producers not redirected the plot into making sure we see lots of shapely people in bathing suits (or in what I'm guessing the reason for the "unrated" moniker a few fleeting bare breasts). The film never generates any tension nor rises above the level of a forgettable TV movie. If you get roped in to seeing this you won't pluck your eyes out since the eye candy is pleasant but we really need to stop producers from making films that are excuses to have a paid vacation.

smokehallic The picture starts perfectly and initially it was so excited but the main thing starts at the middle of the film, where the villains come into the picture. Initially started off after the villains come in is they wanted to search the Sand Cristobal which the hero and the heroine are searching for 4 years and after some time they turns the real story of the lovely couple into a disaster by telling what they actually wanted. But in the starting itself they will show us that two huge boxes are thrown into the ocean which is the main theme of the story. The villain people come to search them and take them home but ....Cheers....